For lack of time, I’m not going to pursue the thorough research necessary to trace the doctrinal conclusion about wheaten bread through history, but two points are relatively obvious to make. The first is that, even accepting that legitimate arguments could be made against the tradition, Jeremiah hasn’t found them. The specific lesson of the passage from Mark 7 that Jeremiah cites has to do with spiritual cleanliness’s being an internal quality, not something that can be ingested through a lapse in physical cleanliness. Jesus’ other example, corban (or “qorban”), is something set apart for God, so the warning is against human rules that offer loopholes from Commandments. The reality that calling dibs for God, so to speak, isn’t a legitimate way to avoid helping one’s parents doesn’t mean that nothing can be put aside for Him.
On the general matter that human traditions oughtn’t supplant divine doctrine, well, the fact that one can teach “as doctrines human precepts” does not mean that all taught doctrines are human precepts. As Jeff Miller put it, those who invoke the Pharisees in attacks against the Church “tend to forget about the opposite of the Pharisees – the Sadducees who followed no rules but whatever suited them.” Could a legitimate Mass be celebrated with popcorn and beer?

I also don’t intend to trace the full history of the Church’s decision to make wheat the defacto Eucharistic standard, though I will go into some Scripture that indicates that the grain of the Eucharist bread is at best a matter of negligible spiritual quality, and that the purpose of the bread is not ingredient-specific allegory used to instill some canonical ruling into the hearts of believers.
For those unfamiliar with the Catholic Church doctrine on the subject, here is a bit of background. Inestimabile Donum 8, which is the latest major statement on the subject of the liturgy, says this about Eucharist bread:

The bread for the celebration of the Eucharist, in accordance with the tradition of the whole Church, must be made solely of wheat, and, in accordance with the tradition proper to the Latin Church, it must be unleavened. By reason of the sign, the matter of the Eucharistic celebration ‘should appear as actual food.’ This is to be understood as linked to the consistency is mof the bread, and not to its form, which remains the traditional one. No other ingredients are to be added to the wheaten flour and water. The preparation of the bread requires attentive care to ensure that the product does not detract from the dignity due to the Eucharistic bread, can be broken in a dignified way, does not give rise to excessive fragments, and does not offend the sensibilities of the faithful when they eat it.

The Code of Canon Law states that “The bread must be made of wheat alone and recently made so that there is no danger of corruption” (924:2).
Friar Nicholas Halligan discusses the validity of the consecrated bread in The Sacraments and Their Celebration, noting that Transubstantiation occurs only if the ingredients of the bread are lawful and licit.

The requisite material for the celebration of the Eucharist and the confection of the sacrament is only wheaten bread, recently made whereby the danger of corruption is avoided… Unleavened bread alone is to be used in the Latin Rite.
The bread must be made from wheat, mixed with natural water, baked by the application of fire heat (including electric cooking) and substantially uncorrupted. The variety of the wheat or the region of its origin does not affect its validity, but bread made from any other grain is invalid material. Bread made with milk, wine, oil, etc., either entirely or in a notable part, is invalid material. The addition of a condiment, such as salt or sugar, is unlawful but valid, unless added in a notable quantity. Unbaked dough or dough fried in butter or cooked in water is invalid matter; likewise bread which is corrupted substantially, but not if it has merely begun to corrupt…
The bread must be of wheat flour and only in case of necessity a white material thrashed or crushed from wheat. It must be free from mixture with any other substance besides flour and water. It is gravely unlawful to consecrate with doubtful matter. Altar breads must be fresh or recently baked and must not be allowed to get mouldy, which condition varies with regions, climates, etc.

The Church has thus created, from a very simple ceremony involving bread and wine, a highly involved and doctrinally complex ritual that requires Church approval for its very process to be considered valid. Certainly, it is mete of believers to examine all doctrines and test them against the Word. So, what does Scripture say about the sacrament of the Communion?
The Last Supper, in which Jesus offered up his body and blood, was a recreation of the historical and spiritual event which took place in Egypt, when the Lord passed over the houses of Egypt and the Hebrews, and spared the Hebrews’ firstborn by dint of the blood upon their lentils. This miraculous foretaste of the sacrifice of Jesus was provided with certain instructions.

“Then they are to take some of the blood and put it on the sides and tops of the doorframes of the houses where they eat the lambs. That same night they are to eat the meat roasted over the fire, along with bitter herbs, and bread made without yeast. Do not eat the meat raw or cooked in water, but roast it over the fire-head, legs and inner parts. Do not leave any of it till morning; if some is left till morning, you must burn it. This is how you are to eat it: with your cloak tucked into your belt, your sandals on your feet and your staff in your hand. Eat it in haste; it is the LORD’s Passover.
“On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn-both men and animals – and I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am the LORD . The blood will be a sign for you on the houses where you are; and when I see the blood, I will pass over you. No destructive plague will touch you when I strike Egypt.
“This is a day you are to commemorate; for the generations to come you shall celebrate it as a festival to the LORD – a lasting ordinance. For seven days you are to eat bread made without yeast. On the first day remove the yeast from your houses, for whoever eats anything with yeast in it from the first day through the seventh must be cut off from Israel. On the first day hold a sacred assembly, and another one on the seventh day. Do no work at all on these days, except to prepare food for everyone to eat – that is all you may do.
“Celebrate the Feast of Unleavened Bread, because it was on this very day that I brought your divisions out of Egypt. Celebrate this day as a lasting ordinance for the generations to come. In the first month you are to eat bread made without yeast, from the evening of the fourteenth day until the evening of the twenty-first day. For seven days no yeast is to be found in your houses. And whoever eats anything with yeast in it must be cut off from the community of Israel, whether he is an alien or native-born. Eat nothing made with yeast. Wherever you live, you must eat unleavened bread.” – Exodus 12:7-20

The importance of the yeast is a matter of some import, I suspect, for the Catholic Church, though Church doctrine itself keys more on the type of grain that is used rather than its unleavened nature. Nevertheless, Jacob Neusner of Bard College makes an ]]> http://www.fringeblog.com/2004/08/wheat-vs-rice-a-response-to-critics/feed/ 15 http://www.fringeblog.com/2004/08/rice-or-wheat/ http://www.fringeblog.com/2004/08/rice-or-wheat/#comments Fri, 20 Aug 2004 16:04:45 +0000 jelewis8 http://www.fringeblog.com/2004/08/rice-or-wheat/ Spiritual reality to Catholic Church: Girl’s first Communion invalid because wafer didn’t contain wheat (the girl suffers from a rare digestive disorder and cannot eat wheat).
Spiritual reality according to Scripture: “[Jesus] replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: “‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.’ You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men.”
Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. Nothing outside a man can make him ‘unclean’ by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him ‘unclean.’” – Mark 7:6-8, 14-15
Such is this false reasoning by the Church, that a Communion wafer must contain wheat. Jesus condemned this kind of behaviour and regulatory practice among the Pharisees, yet it can apply to anyone who subverts the Jesus’ message with textual conscription. Jesus’ proclamation that nothing outside could make one unclean was revolutionary, since Judaic law was built upon the duality of nature, that things were either “clean” or “unclean”, as designated by God. Not only did this serve as a sort of pre-government regulation health code, but was a conceit that figured throughout the Old Testament as a measure of the absolutes of the Law, the demands of holiness placed upon men by God, and man’s inability to conform to said Laws–just another indication that man could not and cannot live on bread alone (the Law) but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God (God’s physical presence, so close you can hear his words).
What does a non-wheat Communion wafer have to do with cleanliness?
This is a sticky issue for me, since I don’t endorse giving children Communion unless they are in fact aware of the intent of the ritual. I’m not talking about doctrinal history, the hermaneutics of Christ’s death and resurrection and the Supper that preceded both that became the cornerstone of the Communal sacrament–just a basic knowledge and understanding of what Christ’s sacrifice means and an active belief in that sacrifice and more importantly, Christ’s resurrection that provides salvation.
Given that she does know what Communion means and believes that Christ has saved her, what is the difference between a wheat wafer or a rice wafer? Is one clean and the other not? Is one more holy than the other? The Church has made it about the bread, not the body–exactly as the Pharisees had done with their Corban rules of holy washing, of clean and unclean foods, of daily life, of spiritual life.
When Jesus said “Do this in remembrance of me,” somehow I doubt he was thinking “gluten-only bread, please”. The Pharisees in the Catholic Church would do well to consider that.

The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’
“But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’

That crafty Abraham. He sure knows how to let you know that not only are you in agony, but there’s no hope of ever receiving respite from the pain. Yet there seems to be communication between heaven and hell. Now perhaps this is allegorical. It is a parable, designed to teach a lesson, but whether it depicts the literal circumstances of the spiritual planes is another topic for scrutiny.
But doesn’t Scripture say that Jesus preached the gospel to those souls imprisoned in Hell during his time in the ground? Hmmm. This is more difficult, because if He did, there are a number of theological problems that arise as a result. Here are a couple of good resources on this topic, if you’re interested in exploring. Ultimate conclusion? No, Jesus did not go to Hell and preach to dead people. For one, He could not have preached the whole Gospel, since the Resurrection is the biggest part, and it hadn’t happened yet. Suffice to say, I think the implication to studies on this matter conclude that souls who are dead have no chance of redemption, no second chance, if they had not previously been saved.
So the question remains: does God stop loving those who have died and are not held in His grace?
I don’t know. But He loves all who are still alive, that I do know.